Climate and Energy Action Plan (CEAP)

5 For the purposes of this exer cise, the analysis calculated emissions reductions at two time points: 1) 2015 and 2) 2050. In some cases, however, strategy assumptions are determined for 2030 as well as 2050 to facilitate computation. The analysis did not make assumptions about the timing of strategies, and therefore visual depictions of the emission reduction scenario show a linear decrease between the two time points of 2015 and 2050 . We do not attempt to characterize the pathway between those two time points. Limitations on Attributing Emission Reductions to Specific Strategies The modeled emission reductions in this section provides a sense of what could be achieved if Ashland took serious action on climate change by implementing actions set forth in the Ashland Climate and Energy Action plan. Reductions are presented as groupings of similar actions, but do not necessarily represent the reductions associated with those actions due to challenges in attributing emission reduction values to individual actions . Potential emission reductions associated with individual actions can be difficult to quantify with certainty due to their interdependent nature. For example, reduced emissions associated with switching from gasoline to electric vehicles will depend large ly on the mix of energy sources on the electricity grid. Emissions associated with use of electricity from the grid will, in turn, be affected by other actions in this plan, such as increased local renewable energy production. It is therefore difficult to single out reductions associated with any one individual action. Assessing emissions reductions is also complicated by uncertainty in underlying variables and assumptions. The efficacy of expanded education and outreach efforts around home energy efficienc y will depend on many factors, including the populations to which outreach will be conducted, the extent to which to City has already reached existing residences, as well as external factors, such as the state of the economy, which influences people’s will ingness to take risks and invest in new technologies. Given these limitations, actions in this plan were not quantitatively modeled for efficacy. Rather, actions were qualitatively assessed relative to other potential actions using a set of criteria that i ncluded estimated emissions reduction potential. Qualitative assessment informed the order of priority actions in this plan. It is expected that, at the time of implementation, the City will undertake more detailed modeling efforts to quantify anticipated outcomes.